User talk:USchick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:USchick/Archive1 Archive2 Archive3

За єдину Україну! Lesser Coat of Arms of Ukraine.svg За единую Украину!


File:Molytva za Ukrainu.jpg

Welcome to my talk page[edit]

I will be unavailable until February, with limited internet access. If you're here about an ArbCom issue, I support the effort and will be happy to participate after January. Happy Holidays! USchick (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 arbitration[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, RGloucester 06:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 request for arbitration declined[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined to be heard by the Committee. The arbitrators felt that they would rather see this issue brought to WP:AE for enforcement of the discretionary sanctions which are already authorised for the topic area. Please see the the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Violence against men nominated for deletion[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination). Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, USchick. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 03:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

SpongeBob and Ukraine[edit]

Thank you very much for the cookie! I'm happy to help and to answer any additional questions. USchick (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thank you! Would you be able to take another look at the first news article that I had linked? (This one [1]) Someone recommended that I try entering the text into Google Translate, and while that's never a very ideal way of translating anything, I decided to give it a quick look. When I did this, a reference to Family Under the Protection of the Holy Virgin actually does come up - it's in the text underneath the brochure excerpt with Shrek. Could you let me know what is said about this organization? --Jpcase (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This is an article within an article. The main article is in Russian, announcing that the Commission for Morality is holding a meeting to review how cartoons influence children. The title of the Russian article identifies the commission as "Nazi-commission," so the tone is set from the beginning. The Russian article quotes a Ukrainian article where Shrek is accused of sadism and Dream Works is accused of promoting tolerance toward homosexuals. The Russian article continues with quotes from the commission's findings. In an effort to discredit the commission, the article announces that the Commission's Report is published on a website that belongs to an obscure church of the Holy Virgin, a Catholic establishment that's unregistered, not recognized as an official organization in Ukraine, and this church separated from official Catholics in 2009. Since then, the group has become a sect of Антонин Догнал (a person). The innuendo is that the people in this sect are brainwashed.
In my personal assessment, this is a political article where a Russian speaker is attempting to rally other Russian speakers against Ukrainian speakers by making it sound like all Ukrainian speakers are brainwashed Nazis who are trying to do away with Western cultural icons accepted by the rest of the world. This has very little to do with Shrek, and very much to do with the war between Russia and Ukraine. Actually, this would be a very funny article if it weren't so politically motivated. Poor Shrek, he got dragged into this war too. lol
According to your other links, the commission's findings are published in official government sources, but you would never know that from reading this article, because it's being used as war propaganda. Considering the tone and nature of this article, it's not a reliable source for anything at all. It's very poor journalism. USchick (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this article is directly connected to the war in Crimea, since it was actually published in 2012. But I'm sure that tension has been brewing between Ukraine and Russia for some time now, so you may be right about the political motives. Very interesting.
Immediately underneath the Ukrainian article about Shrek are the words, "Скриншот з брошури" - when I put this into Google Translate, I get "screenshot of brochure". Would this be a correct translation? The Russian text then goes on to attribute (if Google Translate is to be trusted) the brochure to the Family Under the Protection of the Holy Virgin (I'll call them the FUPHV for short). So would it be accurate to say that the Ukrainian article was in fact written and published by the FUPHV? You say that the Commission itself was critical of these movies and TV shows, and that their report is posted on the FUPHV's website, but are you quite certain? From what I've been able to gather (admittedly, I could be wrong), the Commission and the FUPHV are not directly affiliated. One is a government organization, the other is a private, fringe, religious organization, right?
Toward the top of the article, Google Translate is telling me that most or all of the criticism for these movies and shows came from a "study"; in the bottom half of the article (below the Ukrainian brochure), Google Translate is telling me that the "study" is contained in the "brochure". So this would lead me to believe (because the brochure was apparently written by the FUPHV) that the Commission itself hasn't levied any criticism against the movies and shows, but was simply reviewing criticism that had stemmed from the FUPHV. Does my interpretation sound correct? Google Translate also says something along the lines of, "The study's authors urge the public to apply to the President, the deputies of the Verkhovna Rada, the National Expert Commission for the protection of public morals, the State Committee for Television and Radio Broadcasting to ban these cartoons in Ukraine." If this translation is more or less accurate, then it would further lead me to the belief that the Commission and the FUPHV are not affiliated, and that the Commission hadn't taken an official stance on any of the movies and shows at that time, since the Commission seems to have been included in the list of people/organizations that the FUPHV wanted citizens to contact.
I hope that my thoughts aren't too hard to follow! Thank you again for being willing to help out with this. :) --Jpcase (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The reason this is so confusing is because the author of the article wants to confuse the reader. Yes, you're right, the commission and FUPHV are not affiliated. It's not clear from the article where the brochure came from. Since churches don't usually publish, it's probably not from the church. A "brochure" could be anything, it could be the actual report published by the commission. What's important here is that the article shows you something published in Ukrainian language and they don't tell you where it came from, they simply take information out of context and then scare you right after that with a follow up in Russian about children in Turkey "allegedly jumping out of windows." Did they jump out of windows, or not? Allegedly according to whom? Allegedly to the official report or allegedly to this article? Also, what's not being said, is that in Turkey, a window is two feet high with grass underneath. In Russia, a window is 12 stories high with a concrete pavement and maybe even vehicle traffic. So child's play in Turkey is a "terrible tragedy" in Russia. And if the "brochure" is a government report, it would have to be published in Ukrainian. No one seems to care about the commission or the report except to point out that both the commission and the church use Ukrainian as their language of communication. Both are presented as crazy. One group is brainwashed and the other one is Nazi.
The commission was supposed to do an assessment, which they did. They have no authority past that. It seems everyone and their brother is now using this information to get an advantage in their own personal drama. Like I said, this particular article would not pass the RS test for Wikipedia standards of a reliable source. The author of the article is pushing POV and has zero interest in anything else. The article doesn't even announce where and when the meeting is being held. But the meeting is the first sentence in the article. So is this meeting important or not? Apparently, the most important thing the author wants to leave us with, is that this information is published on a website of some brainwashed sect. How is this even related? lol The "brochure" is available on the church web site, it's not published by the church according to the article. USchick (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
p.s. Officially, there was no war in Crimea, since no shots were fired. The war is in Donbass. ;-) USchick (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we certain that the FUPHV is a "church" though? I'm pretty sure that it's a "religious organization". Sorry for not prefacing my original request with more background information (which probably would have made my line of thinking a little clearer from the outset). You see, originally, I came across this English-language article [2] from The Wall Street Journal, which attributes criticism of SpongeBob, Shrek etc. to a "report" that had been published by the "fringe Catholic website" Family Under the Protection of the Holy Virgin. Things started to get confusing though, when I came across the following six sources:

Some of those mention a "study" that had apparently been published by the Commission, but this study is quoted as saying things that The Wall Street Journal had attributed to FUPHV's "report" (notice that the "large-scale experiment on Ukrainian children" to "create criminals and perverts" quote is attributed to the FUPHV by the Wall Street Journal, but is attributed to the Commission by some of the other sources). The EITB article mentions that this story was first reported upon by the Ukraínskaya Pravda - I assume that this is the same newspaper which printed the above Russian-language article, right? So even though you make a valid point about the article being unreliable, I'm not sure what other options I have for sorting out the discrepancies between the English-language articles. It seems likely to me that the "brochure" included as an excerpt from the Russian source and the "report" that the Wall Street Journal attributes to the FUPHV are one and the same. But I'm still trying to figure out whether the Commission made any indictments of their own against the movies and shows. The Wall Street Journal indicates that at the time its article was written, the Commission had yet to actually meet about the issue. And it looks like their article was written on the same day as the Russian-language one that we've been analyzing.

Anyways, perhaps the best thing we could do is to try and find a more reliable Ukrainian source about all of this. Do you have any thoughts on where we might be able to find something like that? --Jpcase (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I have no idea why the above text is appearing in blue. Do you know how to fix that?
Welcome to the place of deliberate disinformation where the truth depends on what side you approach from. There are lots of religious groups who don't have a permanent home and they meet wherever they can, so a "church" is like a "brochure" it could be almost anything. For this group to be a "religious organization" they would have to be registered somewhere, and it seems this one is not. What exactly are you trying to sort out? The commission took a strong position against a long list of fictional characters they find offensive. All your sources say that. How to move forward, no one seems to know, and that's why they're appealing to the public that "someone should do something" but no one seems to have the authority, and the President of Ukraine is kind of busy right now with more pressing issues, like keeping his country intact, so sorry Sponge Bob, not a priority. Shrek too. USchick (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
FUPHV may not be a formal "organization", but I'm not sure that it's a church either. Again, the Wall Street Journal describes it as a website, and it seems to me that the allegations against SpongeBob, Shrek, etc. stemmed from this website. The problem that I'm having is that the Wall Street Journal (which I'm inclined to treat at the most reliable reference of the bunch) actually doesn't say anything about the commission taking "a strong position" against any of these characters. Rather, the Wall Street Journal says that the Commission had yet to discuss the allegations. All of the other references date roughly to the same time as the Wall Street Journal article, and a few of them even got their information from that article - so it seems to me that the other references were misunderstanding the story when they said that the Commission was indicting SpongeBob and the others. Now perhaps the Russian-language article says this about the Commission, but it sounds like that article is intentionally misleading, so I'm not really sure what to make of the information that it contains. Sorry that I've had to ask you so many questions about this. I tend to get very focused on minutiae, and I hope that I haven't been bothersome in doing so. I went ahead and wrote something about this in the SpongeBob SquarePants article (in the third paragraph of the Criticism and Controversy section) and decided to simply leave out the Commission's response to the allegations. I simply wrote that the FUPHV wanted to have SpongeBob and the others banned, and that the Commission reviewed the matter in August 2012. Would you be willing to let me know if what I've written seems accurate? --Jpcase (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, I find this interesting as well. I had no idea Ukraine has so much influence on world politics and most of all, on Sponge Bob! I can assure you that this one religious organization is not the driving force behind the effort to ban Sponge Bob. European parents in general are very concerned about what their children watch, and that's why this committee exists at the government level. But you don't have to worry about them, because they have been disbanded. [9] See the people in black hats in that picture? Those are official religious leaders from registered churches, and they're complaining that their voices have been completely ignored and the lawyers are looking into it. The reason I say Sponge Bob is an innocent bystander in this case, is because there was a big, gigantic controversy this past Christmas over Santa Claus, and that was also politically motivated with Russian, Ukrainian, and American war propaganda. I didn't follow the story very closely, but from what I remember, people got hurt. What's interesting here, is that if you look at the government web site [10], the decision of the committee is very reasonable. They name specific episodes that aired on certain dates and they determined that those particular episodes were not geared toward children at all, they were created for an adult audience. The Ukrainian government web site is a primary source. The news stories that talk about this committee are secondary sources. It's not clear where the reporters get their information, but it doesn't seem to reflect the official statements published on the government web site. The news stories are very sensational and political in nature, even the English language stories. Like this one [11], they don't report what the committee said, they report what the Ukrainian newspaper said. Is that because no one on the staff is bilingual? They have no idea what the committee report said, they would rather report on a controversial sensationalist article that someone else reported. So if we go with Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, we have to go with secondary sources. I think what you said in the article is fine. Taken out of context, it was extremely political, and maybe that's why they disbanded the committee, so now they have to find something else to fight about. What a bunch of crybabies! :) USchick (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Well well, Sponge Bob makes the news again, this time with a Russian porn reference [12] as it relates to this video [13]. See? Nothing about any of this can be taken seriously. lol USchick (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
LOL to the video. I believe that we actually could use the government primary source to say what the government's official stance on the matter was. Best to use secondary sources when possible, but WP:Primary says that it's okay to use primary sources with care. Do you think it would be best to follow up the existing three sentences with something like, "The following month it released a statement declaring that certain episodes seemed to be aimed at adult audiences, rather than children." or would you suggest something else? Does the government website specify what the Commission wanted to see done about the controversy? Did the Commission want those specific episodes banned, or did it want the show to be marketed toward adults rather than children (perhaps being moved to a later time slot)? Or did the Commission simply write the whole affair off as unworth taking action over? --Jpcase (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for disappearing. The commission was tasked with reviewing the matter. They have done that. What happens next is yet to be determined. USchick (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

deOrphaning script[edit]

Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, Jim Cartar came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as Manishearth's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.

What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.